Beginner Photographer Looking At Next Steps

[Derrel]

In Nikon's current lineup, there is the 35mm f/1.8 DX-Nikkor, which is a lower-priced lens designed to be best on DX-sensor Nikons.
Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Standard Lens - Black

This is on sale right now at $179.99 from BestBuy, with a price-match guarantee offered by BestBuy stores all across the country.

Note that this is being sold as a "standard lens", in the way Gary is referencing is as a 50mm e-FOV equivalent. This has become the new way to talk about lenses for smaller-tna-FX sensor type cameras, as "e=FOV" for equivalent field of view.

There is also a $529 AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED, which has ED glass, and better optics, and is for both FX and DX Nikon cameras. This is a fairly new optical design, and is one of the few 35mm lenses that have ED glass.
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED Prime Lens for ... - Best Buy

The earlier 35mm f/2 AF and AF-D lenses require a camera that has an in-camera, screw-drive motor for autofocusing.

 

[tlturn]

I took a look. I appreciate the two on the upper right best. The first tells me that you're looking at the light and the second says that you're open for images where ever they may appear. If I was your mentor I would recommend you get a 50mm f/2 or f/1.8. Cheap but make sure it is sharp, (most are). Only shoot with that lens for a spell. Fill the frame with your images. Take your time, try to capture images which require no cropping in post. Zoom with your feet. Don't be afraid to get dirty or wet in order to fill the frame, (take a plastic bag for the camera). There will be a point, as you harmonize with the lens and your creativity kicks in capturing interesting images with only one focal length, that you'll know what the next lens should be ... either long, or wide or even a macro.

Art and perfection go hand in hand ... can't have exceptional art without perfection.

Thanks Gary, I appreciate the feedback. I tried to go as early as I could that morning to get some good lighting, but as soon as I got up on the mountain, the clouds came rolling in and the a rain shower started. I kept my camera on the ready as the sun periodically peeked through the valley. My biggest focus as been trying to find that harmony with the lens, on some days it's there...on others...not so much. I agree with your analysis though. When I'm shooting, my aim is to fill frame completely, and use objects around me to help fill frames when applicable. I'm getting some really good insight from you and others, so I think I have a pretty good idea which step I'm heading in next from a lens standpoint.

 

[tlturn]

Stop wasting your time with an awful lens like the 55-200. I've used one on a consumer Nikon body, mostly in Hawaii. It's designed for one thing: to be sold at $199 to $139.

Hilarious! I literally laughed out loud! The 55-200 is horrible. In my opinion, it has been essentially useless. The image quality is garbage to say the least. I shot around with it in NY from the Brooklyn Bridge last August and none of the shots were anything to write home about. If I can find someone to give me a few bucks for it, I'll sell it off and apply the profit to a new telephoto. I think that the prime 55 or 85 make sense, although the 55 isn't telephoto.

 

[tlturn]

Do you want to be a better photographer or do you want to buy stuff?
Equating more equipment with improvement as a photographer is just plain wrong.
I use one lens for about 95% of my shots.
Do you think that buying that lens is the key to success?

I totally agree with Gary and want to add this: 11 Tips for Beginning Photographers - How to Start Taking Pictures

There are no shortcuts, no tricks, no tips - there is only learning, experience and skills.

I'm pretty sure that I answered that a few times already, but obviously I want to get better and some of that can be attributed to better equipment. I can't even capture rain drops with my current lenses.

I have stepped outside on the balcony on a few partially sunny days in the afternoon in an attempt to compose a photo of rain drops falling and...no dice. I think that's equipment, and not the operator.

 

[spiralout462]

Rain is tricky. A slow shutter, therefore a tripod is usually required.

Also, 50mm on a crop sensor camera gives the field of view of a short telephoto lens.

 

[Derrel]

How to shoot rain depends on how you want to render raindrops...I live in Oregon where we average 154 days per year with measurable rainfall (100 is the USA average), and 144 days per year with sunshine (the USA average is 200 sunny days per year).

How you want raindrps to be rendered depends on lighting conditions, and how you want the drops to look. In general, a sloooooow shutter speeds will make rain totally disappear, and I mean **disappear**. Long, slow speeds do not even show rain. About 1/160 second to 1/90 second makes rain drops of any size appear like 3- to 5-inch long streaks, and that conveys rain very nicely. When the rain gets down to 1/2 ro 1 inch long streaks...it loses a lot of impact IMHO.

A telephoto lens view, from 80 to 300mm, with angled sky-light coming in from the side or from BEHIND the rain, with a DARKER background that is at least two, and preferrably three to five EV darker than the light the rain is in, makes rain stand out in a most incredible way! "Light advances, dark recedes". In March, April, and May, when skies are gray, trees have bloomed with new leaves, and afternoon rain showers come and go, and light comes through low,scattered gray stormy rain clouds, rain as a subject becomes very,very shootable for short periods over and over during the day.

On an overcast day, HEAVY rain showers can be photographed fairly easily, and range of shutter speeds from 1/25 second to 1/300 second work. Once you start getting in to the speeds higher than about 1/250 or 1/300 or so, then rain drops render more like hail or sleet--like little specks that have very little interest visually...unless the downpour is absolutely torrential, rain drops can be difficult to see, difficult to show, unless there is some contrast between the rain, and the background. And again, sunlighted or bright area with rain, and then a dark to dark-ish background is what makes the rain stand out clearly, and that is when the 1/90 to 1/160 range of shutter speeds will give you a nice, long, streaky rain drop effect; AND, as a bonus, if the camera is rock-steady, that is where the droplets splattering on things like fence-tops, car-tops, sidewalks, and puddles, will be visible.

Again....the days where there is good rain amounts, and when there is sunlight and clouds and gray skies and shafts of light, those types of intermittently rainy-showery days are when you stand the best chance of getting good rain shots. Puddles, and flooded streets in the fall can also be a good time, when leaves clog up street drain grates, and there's LOT of rain, again, same thing, speeds of 1/90 to 1/160, firm camera support or VR or IS lens.

Look for rain in lighted areas, with a dark background behind it.

 

[tlturn]

I totally agree with Gary and want to add this: 11 Tips for Beginning Photographers - How to Start Taking Pictures

Thanks for this guide by the way!

 

[tlturn]

How to shoot rain depends on how you want to render raindrops...I live in Oregon where we average 154 days per year with measurable rainfall (100 is the USA average), and 144 days per year with sunshine (the USA average is 200 sunny days per year).

How you want raindrps to be rendered depends on lighting conditions, and how you want the drops to look. In general, a sloooooow shutter speeds will make rain totally disappear, and I mean **disappear**. Long, slow speeds do not even show rain. About 1/160 second to 1/90 second makes rain drops of any size appear like 3- to 5-inch long streaks, and that conveys rain very nicely. When the rain gets down to 1/2 ro 1 inch long streaks...it loses a lot of impact IMHO.

A telephoto lens view, from 80 to 300mm, with angled sky-light coming in from the side or from BEHIND the rain, with a DARKER background that is at least two, and preferrably three to five EV darker than the light the rain is in, makes rain stand out in a most incredible way! "Light advances, dark recedes". In March, April, and May, when skies are gray, trees have bloomed with new leaves, and afternoon rain showers come and go, and light comes through low,scattered gray stormy rain clouds, rain as a subject becomes very,very shootable for short periods over and over during the day.

On an overcast day, HEAVY rain showers can be photographed fairly easily, and range of shutter speeds from 1/25 second to 1/300 second work. Once you start getting in to the speeds higher than about 1/250 or 1/300 or so, then rain drops render more like hail or sleet--like little specks that have very little interest visually...unless the downpour is absolutely torrential, rain drops can be difficult to see, difficult to show, unless there is some contrast between the rain, and the background. And again, sunlighted or bright area with rain, and then a dark to dark-ish background is what makes the rain stand out clearly, and that is when the 1/90 to 1/160 range of shutter speeds will give you a nice, long, streaky rain drop effect; AND, as a bonus, if the camera is rock-steady, that is where the droplets splattering on things like fence-tops, car-tops, sidewalks, and puddles, will be visible.

Again....the days where there is good rain amounts, and when there is sunlight and clouds and gray skies and shafts of light, those types of intermittently rainy-showery days are when you stand the best chance of getting good rain shots. Puddles, and flooded streets in the fall can also be a good time, when leaves clog up street drain grates, and there's LOT of rain, again, same thing, speeds of 1/90 to 1/160, firm camera support or VR or IS lens.

Look for rain in lighted areas, with a dark background behind it.

I'll have to try it again, but I remember trying speeds across the range, and
I couldn't get that streak look that I saw in one of your pics.

 

[DanOstergren]

Stop wasting your time with an awful lens like the 55-200. I've used one on a consumer Nikon body, mostly in Hawaii. It's designed for one thing: to be sold at $199 to $139.

Hilarious! I literally laughed out loud! The 55-200 is horrible. In my opinion, it has been essentially useless. The image quality is garbage to say the least. I shot around with it in NY from the Brooklyn Bridge last August and none of the shots were anything to write home about. If I can find someone to give me a few bucks for it, I'll sell it off and apply the profit to a new telephoto. I think that the prime 55 or 85 make sense, although the 55 isn't telephoto.

If none of the photos were keepers, I have to ask what about them made them no good? I have found in my experience that even with the lowest quality gear, a good photographer can still capture beautiful photos worth keeping.